User talk:PSWG1920

Welcome!

Hello, PSWG1920! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Bates Method

I agree with you about the magazine link. But rather than edit war, please come to the bottom of the discussion page of that article and state your point. Also, consider some of the links I posted for you above. They will help you along here at Wikipedia. Welcome! I hope you stay. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Levine2112. I agree that we need to discuss this. It's a rare situation that such resources are available. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your username, you should probably look at WP:COI and WP:UN to be aware. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Made some changes to the Batesmethod of Natural vision improvement article.I invite you hereby to read it again. Seeyou (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move my talk page comments again

I promise that I will not delete or move your talk page comments, as per WP:TALK. Please do the same for me. Please do not remove or move my talk page comments. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do it again without asking; however, reading WP:TALK, I don't see anything about merely moving comments from one part of a talk page to another. For sure, it warns against deleting or editing others' comments, but it's not clear if that includes merely moving part of a thread from one part of a page to another in order to emphasize specific topics. Note that I linked to the thread in which it started, so it's not as if I obscured your meaning. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ask; I'm telling you right now that the answer is no. Please leave my talk page comments alone. Dlabtot (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is splitting threads in talk pages generally considered acceptable or not?  This doesn't seem to be addressed specifically in WP:TALK. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no way should you modify anyone's, even your own, talk page comments. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}::Previous statement is inconsistent with WP:TALK, Good Practice, Centralized Discussion, which states:

If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link.

Splitting threads, though not specifically addressed in WP:TALK, is the same principle in reverse.

In general is that the thread or comment is made by another user, you are never allowed to edit in text from other users without consensus (also not to create a better layout, which is sometimes better) or consent from that user. sometimes discussions are moved to the right talkpage, always with leaving a link to, clear or do you need more info ? Mion (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say if splitting threads is generally unacceptable, that needs to be made clear in WP:TALK. Also worth noting is that I started the thread in question. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the text, no editing in text from other users, including splitting .Mion (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it is with the best intention, and a good splitting helps the discussion, however, some people changed with reformatting the layout also a thing or two, so thats why there is a general rule that discussions are not reformatted, Mion (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

{{helpme}}Why has my Request for comment, filed several hours ago, not yet appeared here? Did I do something incorrectly? Or is it because there's already a different (unrelated) RfC on the same talk page? PSWG1920 (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please check again, it appears to have appeared at the top of the page. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

I don't see it, but I do see the other RfC from that talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably because there is a different unrelated one on the same page. Feel free to add your RFC to the list Alexfusco⁵ 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your wanting of me to review Bates method tags.

I found that all but the NPOV tag should stay, feel free to remove the NPOV tag if none object. Atyndall93 | talk 09:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I admit I am a bit bewildered by your findings. See my response to you on the Bates method talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone into more depth about the tags after your request on my talk page. Atyndall93 | talk 09:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

I'm glad we're making progress too. I especially liked your edit where you restored the Pollack reference. You're exactly right that it needs to be there to bring the information together: Bates' views, current medical findings, and Pollack's context that links the two and makes it clear why they are being presented in the article. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of a reply at WP:RFF

Hello. I have replied to your post at Requests for feedback. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop discussing me in Talk:Bates method?

I obviously made a mistake in not reminding you of this earlier. If you have something to discuss about me, please use a proper forum. Thanks --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I don't believe I've ever accused you of having a coi, only that you should review WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on Talk:Bates method you did seem to state on at least two occasions that I had a coi, here and here. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Indeed I have. In one case, it was brought up by another first. The other, it's clear that I should have started this discussion long ago. In both cases, it would have been better if I hadn't continued any coi discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my bringing this up on the talk page was not for the purpose of airing past grievances. I was simply trying to explain some of my edits to SamuelTheGhost, since I was responsible for most of the wording which he used as examples of what he objected to. And really, every time I make an edit to the article, I now consider what you would likely say about it. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on self-published sources

Sorry, I meant to respond to this but kept forgetting. Is it still an issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think WP:SPS is misleading, as it seems to be saying that only a recognized expert's self-published work can be cited anywhere in Wikipedia, while WP:SELFQUEST indicates that is not the case. What I think WP:SPS should say is that the individual should be notable in connection with the article's subject, with basically the same cautionary note as is present now, adding that whatever credentials they have should not be misrepresented in Wikipedia. The rest would be left to WP:UNDUE, which could perhaps be linked to from there. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have "band-aid" fixed the problem, but I still think this is not laid out well. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method intro

The intro section looks much better to my eyes. Nice job. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sorry I simply reverted you the first time. I'm really trying to get the article to GA status, and content-wise I don't think it's far from it, but consensus still seems a long way off. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I knew you had legitimate concerns, I just wanted to keep pushing the edits forward. Drive by editing is always a risky endeavor. :) But outside eyes can be helpful too and you did a good job cleaning up the mess I left.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five... four... three...

Nice to see you taking a breather from the Bates Method article :) Just wanted to say ur doing a great job! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may eventually try to get a few articles about fairy tales up to GA quality, and I suspect I would meet with far less controversy there. I just added another image to the Bates method article which illustrates a concept mentioned in the text, but I suspect that at least one user will object to it. We'll see. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you need any help with those articles, i'd love to help out - fairy tales are a passion of mine, and i must say i was sorely disappointed in the three pigs article. in reference to the pic, i'm happy you added it - with the prose talking specifically about an image, its absence was stark, and a bit of a tease. Also, if you could provide some visual diagrams from Better Eyesight that help explain "swinging" it would be very helpful (provided they are prior to 1923, that way we wouldn't have fair-use complaints). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Better Eyesight magazine doesn't seem to contain illustrations. One of the books referenced in the "Shifting and Swinging" section of the article does contain an illustration of the long swing (from the snippet view), but I doubt that is free as the book is from 1986. If an animation could be found and if it were usable that would be best.

I was disappointed with the Three Little Pigs article as well. I guess we need more sources which discuss the story (and which are not self-published.) Another article which I was looking at recently was Tailypo (I first heard that from a storyteller in grade school), which is fairly good except for the lack of sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if you want to maintain your status as WP:SPA you should be looking at Three Blind Mice? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually somewhere in Quackenbush's book there is a version in which the three blind mice learn to "blink, sketch, and breathe" and regain their sight! I wonder how long a mention of that would last on the Three Blind Mice page (considering the amount of trivia present in other articles about such tales.) PSWG1920 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fun to introduce it into the BM article. I'd love to see the reaction to that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe.... if it actually added anything to the article, i'd love to put it in... kinda funny... neways, in response to your concerns about the primary sources tag, i've already responded to Ronz, let's see where this goes. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a favor

i hope i've helped things moved forward, and that soon you can renominate the Bates article, i feel it is nearly there, but considering my involvement am no longer able to complete a formal review. I was hoping that you could possibly review an article I have worked heavily on - Fancy rat. The user who said they'd review the article at WP:GAN#BIO also took four other articles under thier wing and has yet to complete even a prelim review on any of them. i think it would be ok if you were bold and went ahead and reviewed it anyways - i'm eager to get feedback on this article and eventually promote it to GA - next stop FA... then the world!!! happy holdiays! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it but I'm not sure I have enough experience yet for this. Though I guess if I make a mistake it can always be fixed. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, this looks like something I can do. Should I simply replace his name with mine on the GAN listing, or contact him to see if it is okay? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the quick response! i've left specific responses at Talk:Fancy rat/GA1. Your comments about interchanging pet rat and fancy rat seem to imply the lead does not do a good enough job of explaining the situation, perhaps through some dialogue we can come up with a solution that new readers would understand. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a merge into Brown Rat might be a good idea, and have explained myself further on the review page. I will not officially suggest the merge, however, because I remember getting annoyed when someone showed up at the Bates method article and immediately suggested that it be merged into William Bates. Though if it's all right with you I might outline how it could be done on Talk:Fancy rat. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re: [4]. I appreciate it. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags - 2

I see no consensus or other justification that you appear to be referring to in your edit summary [5]. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. [6] [7] --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This simply looks like editing out of frustration on your part. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that anyone who looks at this situation will see that I have good reason to be frustrated. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with that. Have you considered for a second that it may be your own doing? Do you think it excuses your recent behavior? You've been given other options to try. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so determined to have that warning banner on the top of the article, I suggest that you try something other than edit-warring. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this some more, if you're not going to let this go (and I strongly suggest that you do let it go), MedCab looks like the first viable option here, as it lends itself to having situations thoroughly laid out (thus not requiring a potential helper to piece things together.) I caution, however, that I believe an impartial examination of recent events will cast you in a rather bad light, which is why I recommend that you back off. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've come up with an alternative. I wish you had not continued to harass me in the process of mentioning it. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we don't waste any time though: I will not participate in any medcab until you stop harassing me and demonstrate that you can WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSWG, it might be better to just let the placement of the tags drop. Rather than forcing ronz to put tags in certain spots, you should spend your energy trying to zero in on what his/her specific issues are. By repeatedly asking for explicit details, Ronz will realize that blanket statements are unhelpful and should start outlining what needs to be addressed or discussed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've already tried that; look what happened. But I am hopeful that he has now gotten the message and will not restore them again. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With that said I shouldn't have edit-warred, and I'm sorry. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i can appreciate your frustration. that being said, even if ronz puts the template back up, i would advise against reverting him. Nothing is gained by taking them down again, and it's not a serious concern - it's more important to focus on improving the conten, not what the tag says at the top of the article. Should his concerns turn out to be easily addressed or ungrounded, a third party (i think it unfair to consider me impartial now) can make an assessment. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

happy new year!

Sorry, about scampering away from Wikipedia.... my internet access and real life obligations ended up interfering with my work here. But i'm back and will be 110% focused on getting your issues addressed at Fancy rat! Will be communicating with you again shortly :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. I'm sorry I didn't work on the article more myself, but I figured that with your familiarity with the subject you would be able to sort through the sources more efficiently. Unfortunately things are not going well at Bates method. When I saw I had new messages I figured it was another warning, so this was a pleasant surprise. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry you've been having friction with other editors and i hope it gets resolved expediently :) if you have time over the next few days, i think i've addressed almost all the issues at Fancy rat (refs are fun...) I have one question in comments posted near the remaining {{fact}} tag in the Fancy rat#Health section asking for clarification, and still need to figure out what we're doing on the Entertainment section. Like I've said, I don't think a pop culture section is inherently bad, as several articles have attained FA with them intact. If I added sources about Beatrix Potter's pet ownership during the emergence of rat fancy which inspired her writing of Samuel Whiskers do you think it would give enough weight justify keeping the section? Otherwise i don't want to waste the effort on a section that will be removed, and will first seek out a second opinion (if that's alright) since you seemed a little unsure about the idea yourself. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can find a source (without synthesizing anything) for the idea expressed in the final paragraph of the introduction. If you can, then that source can also help frame the exposition of that point in the Entertainment section. If there is not a good source for that idea, then the subject of rats in fiction may not be worth discussing here. I actually may end up seeking a second opinion on this GA review, if I'm still uncertain on too many points when you're finished making improvements. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i doubt i could find anything beyond clute and langton, and they are discussing rats in general - not just rats as pets. the last paragraph in the intro is a direct summary of the entertainment section (as it should be). it just seems that this role is too prevalent to ignore, i have three good third party sources, and while i could arguably merge it into the section at brown rat (vastly improving it) it seems odd to not have it here. I am understandably close to the subject, and so maybe another's opinion w-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatworm

Hi, PSWG1920, I'm removing the "lead too long" tag you've added, but will be happy to discuss the lead with you at Talk:Flatworm. I've submitted the article for GA review, and in a few other cases reviewers have concluded that phyla are such big subjects that it's better to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I probably won't be involved there further, as I was only attempting to raise awareness of what lead sections are supposed to entail. I would however point out that in proportion to the body of the article, the introduction's length decidedly exceeds WP:LEAD standards. The article is (understandably) on the long side, but is only half the size of, for instance, Cold war, whose introduction length I could understand. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold war looks like an interesting article. However the Cold War had a limited number of distinct phases, while Flatwoms are one of the messiest of the better-known phyla, as the "Phylogeny" section describes. Any commments you do want to make wil be welcome. --Philcha (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly reading the introduction and looking at the table of contents, I would be inclined to suggest scaling down what is currently the second paragraph to one sentence (just noting the divisions and keeping detail to a minimum in the lead) and possibly removing the final paragraph of the lead. Just an uninformed suggestion, though; I'm not going to get involved. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've scaled down the 2nd para a bit, what do you think?

Re the last para, I think it would be poor summarisation to omit the (uncertain) benefits, after such emphasis on the harm flatworms do. --Philcha (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wet season

The lead has been shortened as much as possible. Any shorter, and its format will be ruined due to the images/templates on the right. I'm removing the tag. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here, but I don't think you're supposed to be basing an article around images and templates. However, I won't interfere anymore. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method tags

I may have done something that will upset Ronz, but one editor's incomprehension of wikipedia's guidelines and policies should not stall the project. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately the article probably still would not pass as GA due to the dispute over the "fig. 4" image (and I am convinced that if it were added, disputes over how to contextualize it would soon follow, and thus not seeing how it helps I vehemently oppose its inclusion.) PSWG1920 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i know this is technically a "dead" thread, but like i said on the talk page, a "fig. 4"-type diagram is an FA concern... i think you may get this article to GA soon if there is stability in it's outline (when serious concerns are brought up on the outright removal of a section, obviously the article is not yet stable). I am watching the article only casually now, as most of the imediate concerns I saw have been taken care of. As for the lead, i think that it has generally been fine, it summarizes the article and is appropriate in length with respect to the article. you might ask someone outside the common group for more input, or just nominate it again and see where it goes :) good luck! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed I have listed it on WP:Peer review, which only became possible when the cleanup banner was removed. Depending on the outcome I may nominate it for GA again. I think that for the time being, the article's subject likely precludes it from being FA. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the only subjects that are inherently precluded from FA are ones like Flaffy. but that's another issue. i hope the peer review goes well. Levine submitted Fancy rat there as well, and I think I have hammered out most of the issues, there remains only a couple questions that i had for the reviewer - of course after all this I might just seek help to fix the prose issues i have and then push it on to FAR, lol. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not see any articles about fringe therapies currently listed as Featured Articles, see Wikipedia:FA#Health and medicine. Second, even assuming that the subject does not in itself preclude it, the general limitations of contemporary secondary sources regarding the Bates method likely makes it untenable to give the subject the range of coverage which seems to be required for FA. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

AGF. Really. I thought you got the snarkiness out of your system. I guess not [8]. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did AGF. I could have easily taken "If you don't see the obvious problems" as an insult or as sarcasm, but I didn't. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it that way, but see your point. I've changed my comment to hopefully remove any such interpretation. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same thing about my comment, which I have now also changed. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I pointed out the wording issues in the hope it would help clarify my concerns. I guess it didn't. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to approach others when their interpersonal behavior is problematic?

I've been interested in finding better solutions for a very long time. I try to be fair and consistent, while still trying out different approaches. I don't believe there are any great solutions. My approach has strayed fairly far from my User:Ronz#Addressing_WP:TALK_problems since I wrote it, mostly because of what I've seen admins do when they approach the same problems. I think in this case, those admins are wrong, and that Wikipedia:Talk#Good_practice needs to be more strongly encouraged. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that as a rule of thumb, you should not repeatedly approach someone about behavior which already involves you (not just you in particular, Ronz, but in general.) Ideally it is best to just ignore perceived misconduct directed at you, and see if a third-party points it out (and coming from a third-party such an admonishment is at least marginally more likely to be taken seriously.) If you feel it's too serious to ignore, then express your concerns once to the user in question, and if problems continue and there has been no outside intervention, then either contact another user and ask for help, or report it at an appropriate channel. Repeatedly warning someone about their interactions with you will normally only escalate the problem.

Now, the trickier question is how to deal with such problems as an uninvolved third-party. Personally I would just ignore something marginally inappropriate if it appeared to flow naturally from a valid discussion rather than being a blatant attack on another user. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget I mentioned it. I was hoping this would make you think twice before continuing to make such comments. I'm trying to find ways to stop the problems that have been disrupting articles like Bates method since it's creation. There are other options, such as imposing WP:0RR and reporting each and every civility and consensus-building problem to an administrator. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I was hoping this would make you think twice before continuing to make such comments." To clarify, do "such comments" include suggesting that WP:AGF be demoted to an information page? Or the friendly suggestion to you to consider cutting back on mentioning behavioral guidelines and policies? Or something else? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring problems does not resolve them. Seeyou's problems were ignored for over three years. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that a persistent problem should be ignored. But speaking of Seeyou, if 0RR were imposed on Bates method, we wouldn't be able to revert his confusing edits. I would hope that an admin would do so, but I wouldn't count on it. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 0RR would make dealing with Seeyou almost much more difficult without regular help from an admin. 0RR is intended to force all editors to discuss their editing and form consensus, but requires a great deal of admin assistance to enforce. Anything that needs so much admin assistance is a poor solution.

When do problems become persistent ones? I'd rather just make the editing environment a consistently good example for everyone. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fancy rats of doom

yes i'm done with my substantive edits and i've left a reply at the fancy rat GA review. Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think Levine and I have worked out the final issues, so if you could complete your review of Fancy rat as per the GA criteria I'd appreciate it. I am not aware of any lingering problems. Happy editing PSWG! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now we play The Waiting Game........................... The Waiting Game sucks, let's play Hungry Hungry Hippos! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Bates Method GAN

i just wanted to wish you good luck, i think the article has come a long way and feel really good about it getting passed! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish I were more optimistic about this. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that nothing goes wrong now, but it probably will. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

try not to think of it as something "going wrong". i tend to think your interactions with certain other editors has jaded you. a GA nom is supposed to be when the main contributors honestly think the article is good, and that it's as good as it's going to get (which is why the presence of tags is such a no-no). A reviewer comes along with fresh eyes and says, "oops, you guys forgot about this." that gets fixed and we have a GA! sometimes the reviewers find deeper underlying problems and the article fails. but in time the article can always be renominated once those problems have been worked out. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that something is now "going wrong". I thought it was well-established that specific discussion of the Woods report did not belong in the Bates method article, yet here we are again. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jesus theft

I am trying to rewrite the paragraph as well. There was one reference to the failure of surveillance cameras to trap a thief in Independence Park in Philadelphia. I think that has possibilities. Also, GPS devices are being used in Jewish holiday symbols such as menorahs and dreidels. Needs further research. If you want to give the article a GA now and get it off your list of things to do, please do so. I can continue to search for material to broaden the security measures paragraph. You've done a remarkable job in bringing this article to GA status, and I cannot tell you how much I've learned from your editorial talent and skill. YOU are one of the reasons WP is such a great place! Thanks for being here! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a paragraph or two on security in a separate section. Please take a look. Revert, edit if needed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good! We were editing the article at the same moment: I was moving the Texas surveillance incident to the second paragraph but you beat me to it! LOL! Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm thrilled the article has reached GA. Thank you! As for Play-Doh, just remove your name fron the nominations page. Leave it and some one else might pick it up. Thanks again! "It's been nice working with you!" ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go

Re: "You're making an assumption that copyright is being violated."[9] No I am not. You've repeatedly made this accusation, and I've already addressed this [10], and then asked you to stop [11]. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding where you addressed this. "My guess is that they just didn't think about it." Effectively that guess is that they violated copyright without thinking about it. "A number of items from their site don't have copyright notices." I explained in the discussion why that is apples to oranges. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play-Doh

Hello! Just dropping a note to say that I'm now continuing your Play-Doh review. I hope your computer behaves itself, and speeds up like a good little computer! - weebiloobil (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of Three

Thank you for the material! It absolutely must be incorporated into the article. It's people like you who make WP a great place to be! Thank you again. ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that source originally when I was working on the Three Little Pigs. I was thinking of getting that to GA, but couldn't seem to find enough sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

meir

you're right, the presence of an external link is not something worth fighting over but it's something you can still point to in future discussions about whether or not modern bates proponents receive enough media attention to allow relevant prose as per UNDUE. i could see where my actions might be considered antagonistic, but when someone states there are problems with a section and then says they'll divulge the details "when they have time" - after a month, it's time to start asking specifics, or you assume consensus. And at the rate that certain editors actually make any substantive changes to articles, I guess you should only worry about direct reversions of material, and assume that the article, as is, has consensus. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to prose, I think that Meir's case would still be too difficult to discuss in the body of the article, which is why in my opinion that Youtube link belongs in EL and not in the references. We'd either be saying "Meir Schneider claims this" "Meir Schneider claims that", which would be a questionable tone, or we'd be portraying him as actually having gotten the improvement he reports, which I'm sure would be objected to. The news report seems to be mostly a primary source, hence the problem.

I do agree that Ronz's vague comments are pretty much irrelevant to the question of consensus, which at present should be assumed regarding the lede. It's probably best to keep communication with Ronz to the minimum level reasonably possible, as lately it always seems to go bad. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, you made me laugh out loud. as for prose... WP:FRINGE and other guidelines (WP:NPOV?) discuss how to attribute controviersial/minority viewpoints, so while i think it could be done it might be something to concern yourself with later when thinking of future improvements. as you've no doubt seen, there are some people who tend to take guidelines and policies further than they should be. I encourage you to spend some time working on less controversial topics in addition to those on pseudo- and fringe sciences. It will help you gain a more balanced view of how our five pillars are actually handled. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nummies

Zappernapper has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

removal archive structure ?

Can you explan why you removed the archive image / option ? Seeyou (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular archiving cluebot is less than ideal for Talk:Bates method. If we have one it should archive by days inactive rather than hours. I also want to keep the summary of the major sources which is #2 on the talk page. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to point out that since a day = 24 hours, have a days option is redundant. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But converting them is an inconvenience. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

paper by Antonia Orfield

Hi. I just stumbled on this paper. Did you know about it? Can we use it? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I remember seeing that before, but I had forgotten about it. I would definitely think we can use it, though exactly how I'm not quite sure. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the External Links. Perhaps we could make an "Individual cases" subsection there, which could include Orfield's link, the BBC piece (which largely centers around one "Jess"), and the Meir Schneider news segment if we can get it back in. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad note

I noticed that that link is no longer functional, so I searched to see if I could find out why. It turns out she died three months ago. [12] PSWG1920 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradenstoke Abbey

Thanks for fixing the reference here; it's already been a WP:DYK but I've nominated it for Good article status. If you can see any improvements, please feel free to help out. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO

You misunderstand "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." It does not mean, as you say, the "official site of a practitioner of the article's subject" is allowed. It means "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." There is no official Bates method website, because it is not an entity. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from reading my own words after making that post I realized that that interpretation was likely incorrect. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meir external link

I would advise you to revive discussion at WT:EL. Collectonian based their decision for non-inclusion on lack of value, which was not the issue at question, and Orangemike completely ignored the possibility of fair-use. Rephrasing your question with reference to the archived discussion and emphasis on the possibility of fair-use would be the best course of action. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think maybe you could start that discussion? If I do it, I will probably be accused of canvassing. [13] Keeping it focused will also be tricky. The last discussion went all over the place. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for other examples along these lines, and look at the one I added to Bart Sibrel. It seems to me that is fair use for basically the same reasons the Schneider news segment is such. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with a couple more examples, on Shirley Phelps-Roper and Tommy Tune. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now on Doug Henning and Bob Larson. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing all the current discussions on links to Youtube at Wikipedia Talk:External Links, perhaps they should be allowed to run their course before any more are started. You could however weigh in on "which is rare", which I and others find highly problematic. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External copyvios

Hi, I strongly suggest you read our policy on WP:NFCC and WP:Copyrights. Giving 'fair use rationales' to external copyvios is supported by no policy. If you genuinely believe the content meets our strict non free content criteria, then you are free to transcode the content to Ogg Theora and upload to wikipedia. If not, then I suggest you remove and stop adding copyvio links to wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a reproduction is fair use, then by definition it is not a copyvio. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not a decision for us to make. If the content can be used in our strict NFCC then they should be copied to wikipedia. If not, then we have no provision under any policy to decide external content consisting soley of a copyrighted work used without permission is not a copyright violation because it is used under fair use terms and to put a rationale. So yes as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is a copyvio until you have evidence the content is used with permission on youtube. If you still disagree, I suggest you seek a third party comment before you add any more 'fair use rationale' to external links. (In any case this is a somewhat pointless argument since you will almost definitely find your fair use rationale doesn't hold water. You can't use an entire segment of a news broadcst which are over 5 minutes (bar one where it's about 3 seconds under) in length under fair use and since it comes from a commercial news channel there almost definitely is a potential loss of profit since despite your apparent misbelief, broadcasters do sell resell their footage to others for rebroadcast as well as make it available to end users via means where they make a profit and for it to be available elsewhere would affect that, and although the person who uploaded it is not making a profit, youtube indirectly is) Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your odd rationalizations on the talk page for WP:EL I've looked at some of your edits, and you seem to make a habit of linking to extremely clear copyvio links on YouTube. You have to stop doing that, and if you continue to do so despite knowing it's wrong, you'll end up getting blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Most of that was an ill-advised experiment on my part, which I will not continue in that fashion. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method GA

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award PSWG1920 the Barnstar of Diligence for his sterling efforts to improve the Bates method article to the point where it has been accepted as a Good Article. His persistence, neutral integration of various POVs and creativity are to be commended. Famousdog (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Famousdog. I think that, especially if the "Underlying Concepts" section is improved a bit more, this could be a Featured article candidate. Both the criteria and the nomination process there are tougher than with GA, though. The main thing which might prevent it from passing there is the limitation of contemporary sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Beresford

I see you were equivocating over whether Beresford and his co-authors deserved links. Well, it appears (unless there are two Steven M. Beresfords) that he is also a tax resister - see this blog, for instance. Adds a smidge of notability (and notoriety). Brianyoumans (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had just seen that in two of the sources used in See Clearly Method. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore myopia study

Hi. Your edit summary: "Not sure if this is entirely the same, but it appears to contain this information" is about right. It's been chopped down from the Woods report by deleting all the charts and about half of the text, but what remains is practically all Woods verbatim. By the way, had you noticed User:Seeyou#A conflict of interest ?!? LMAO. He is soooo daft. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what prompted me to again search for the Woods report. I plugged the phrase "so called Bates theory" into Google Scholar, which nailed it. It looks to me like this Wiley site is now opening up to the public; I think I'd come across it before but full documents were only available to registered users. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Don't forget to include SamuelTheGhost (talk · contribs), as Seeyou most recently singled him out, as discussed directly above. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City bombing FAC

I responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oklahoma City bombing/archive1. Let me know if further expansion/clarification is needed or if you notice any other issues. Thanks for taking the time to look over the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For improving our guideline WP:POINT; sometimes less is more. Pcap ping 08:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad that other editors cooperated with the cleanup. I am also glad to see the image of the atomic explosion go. I thought that was silly, but since it had been removed and re-added before, I didn't bother it. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note

Hi. Just to let you know, re the matter currently under the spotlight, I've restored to the prev. version. The reason's explained in the summary. Although well intentioned, the redacted text isn't merited; it is, an instance of a matter frequently sensitive or complex. I gave careful thought before acting. Latter bits lay at odds with wp:v and having checked think the circs don't warrant for the content review process aspect, though that's by the by. Happy to respond here if you need. Thanks, Whitehorse1. 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time understanding your explanation. If you think I was proxying for the user in question (as seems to be suggested by the link in your revert summary), I don't know him/her other than from a few interactions within Wikipedia several months ago. If not that, could you be clearer here? PSWG1920 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, absolutely nothing like that. The link purely referred to the 2-sentence para. of the linked section. While, as above, well intentioned rather than an attempt to bait, the varied factors when taken into account favor its omission.

In the past the user's responded, let's say rashly, when (presumably) they feel trapped or cornered. In fact, it was largely that which elicited a community action rather than the previous de facto situation. Given that, they may respond to such a talkpage comment.
It's a lose-only situation for them though: if they respond un-serenely, that's not good; if they hold back from responding so as not to jeopardize any appeal, it stares them in the face whenever they look at the only page on which they can be active, which they might feel an affront to their dignity; if they respond in rebuttal to speculation or proposals, they may be summarily disbelieved anyway, or worse rebuttal could be taken as refusal to accept what's happened.

Unusually, the redacted comment, distinct from being to the user, discusses them in general and the situation as a whole; similarly, this sits counter to practice as typically, according to the arb guide, such an appeal, if there was one, would be heard and conducted in private, by email, rather than onsite.
It's a difficult situation no matter how we look at it. I hope that goes some way to setting your mind at rest about my action, PSWG1920. Please do say if you would like me to clarify anything. Best wishes, Whitehorse1. 06:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I think I understand now. I would have posted that suggestion somewhere else, but all the other relevant discussions seemed to be archived by the time I thought of it, except one at Wikipedia_talk:GA#GA_approved_by_sock_of_a_banned_user, but that idea would definitely be out-of-place there. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And thank you for being gracious. Mmm, the various discussions petering out is not unexpected. With a need to separate the individual from their contribs, and consider together when needed, along with 'meta' discussion of policies themselves, any discussion that isn't clearly defined will struggle. You're probably right on restriction being beyond the scope of the last one. –Whitehorse1 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight

I feel like we're working at cross purposes here. as you know, I have a substantial revision proposed on the talk page, but you have been involved in an ongoing revision of the section itself. this can only result in your revisions getting scrapped because of my proposal, or my proposal getting scrapped because of your revisions. I don't care which, really - if you just want to edit the main section than I'll pitch is and start doing it myself - but I don't want either of us to waste time on something that's going to get scrapped anyway. so which are we doing? --Ludwigs2 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the principle of my revisions, how about if you alter your proposal accordingly, such as by moving the corresponding part to the beginning which I moved to the top of the section. And if you disagree in principle with my revisions, then revert, preferably with an explanation. I tried to use some of your wording in my latest edit, which was reverted. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I think you missed my point. I don't want to engage in parallel editing here. either you should join me on the talk page or I should join you on the main page talk page. I think the former would be wiser and more effective in the long run, but I'll leave the decision up to you. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop editing that section for now. Sometimes, it seems easier to just edit and summarize the logic rather than begin by discussing it on the talk page, but I realize there are great limitations to that approach. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just as an FYI, I'm not getting any response on the talk page, so I'm thinking about editing in the revised section just to stimulate things. I looked over your changes, but I'm not completely sure hoe to integrate them with the changes I made - can you point out (or change) specific things that you want changed? go ahead and edit straight into the boxed version if you want. once that's done (assuming there's no other comment), I'll copy it over. --Ludwigs2 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ludwig—it was very helpful to be able to edit the boxed version. Do you agree with my changes so far? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Regarding_page_protection_and_edit_warring Triona (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your thoughts on your latest edit [14]. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of complex content disputes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Review of complex content disputes. Since you had some involvement with the Review of complex content disputes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Please note that the continued inclusion of mentioning SOPA at WP:POINT appears to be a WP:POINT violation in itself. Best to remove the material from the guideline and find some consensus for it's relevance. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS

Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Libel"

With regard to this edit - it is inappropriate to invoke "libel" in discussions about article content. Please be aware of Wikipedia's WP:NLT policy on legal threats. Relatedly, could you please say if you have any kind of WP:COI in relation to the topic of Behavioral optometry? Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that WP:Libel is a Wikipedia policy, it's hard to see how it's inappropriate simply to use that term in discussions. Would "defamatory" have been better? When content is potentially defamatory, it should be pointed out.

I have corresponded with two behavioral optometrists, for whatever that's worth. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy to delete libellous material if you find it. If you let it stand you are in violation of policy. If material is not libellous then invoking that consideration as a talking point could be seen as threatening or attempting to chill the conversation. FYI the notion that a type of therapy can be "libelled" by relaying what is known about it, is absurd. You answer on COI is less than full. If two (let's assume disinterested) letters is the extent of your connection with the therapy then on the face of it there is no COI. You are under no obligation to answer my question but it would be helpful if you state either that (a) you have a COI, or (b) you have no COI, or (c) you are not going to say either way. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede as written is at least extremely misleading, for reasons which SamuelTheGhost and I have mentioned. If someone reads on, they will get a better picture, but the lede is supposed to serve as a short version of the article.

I don't see any point in elaborating on the correspondence. Any answer would lead to more questions, unless I just posted the entire exchanges, which I wouldn't do. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to elaborate, I asked a simple question with three options. You didn't answer. Fine. Alexbrn (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Tag abuse/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Tag abuse/Noticeboard, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag abuse/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Tag abuse/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Feinoha ^Talk 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox alternative medicine

Template:Infobox alternative medicine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Fancy rat

Fancy rat has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]